Mark Pritchard: I am grateful for that reply. Of course, John Betjeman wrote more about church bells than about Sunday hedge-trimming, lawnmowers or football matches. I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to all the nation's bell ringers. It is very much a part of English culture and tradition. Does he share my concern that in some villages and towns in this country, over-eager public officials, some weak-kneed vicars and human rights advocates who take the Human Rights Act 1998 to extremes want to silence this nation's bells? Will he put on record his concern and the fact that he will join me to fight any proposals to silence them? As he rightly said, they have rung out for more than 400 years—since long before the lawnmower?

Lynda Waltho: I know that my right hon. and learned Friend is aware of the concern about this issue up and down the country, demonstrated not least by yesterday's support for the private Member's Bill. Does she not agree that it is absolutely ridiculous in this day and age that one can object to a neighbour building a porch, but cannot object to a lap-dancing club opening up 200 yards up the road? Will she further commit to steering this issue through to a successful conclusion so that we are not subjected to an endless game of ping-pong between the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Home Office, which is something I greatly fear?

Harriet Harman: I do make that commitment to my hon. Friend, many other hon. Friends and all Members who have raised this issue. The important point is that local communities and local authorities need to know that the law is there to back them up. If the local community and the local authority think that it is inappropriate for a lap-dancing club to be opened in a particular area, the law should be there to back them up, but it is evident that that is not the position currently. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham said that it was important to make commitments not just to consult, but to act. I can give the House that commitment today.

Barbara Follett: The Government are committed to reducing the gender pay gap, which has been brought down from 17.4 per cent. to 12.6 per cent. in the last decade. We have introduced other supportive measures, including increased maternity pay, improved access to child care and Britain's first ever minimum wage. We have also introduced the right to request flexible working and will announce further measures shortly in the Equality Bill.

Barbara Follett: Obviously it should, but local authorities are responsible for addressing their equal pay issues and we recognise that that is a difficult and costly pressure for many of them. However, I am glad to say that progress is being made. The latest figures show that 47 per cent. of councils have either implemented or completed their pay reviews with only 3 per cent. yet to start them.
	Last year, the Government issued £500 million of capitalisation directions to 46 local authorities, allowing them to borrow against the cost of back pay arising from equal pay deals, thus spreading the load of this one-off cost over a number of years. Councils can also apply for that borrowing facility in the current year.

Barbara Follett: I commend my hon. Friend on the EDM and I particularly commend the work of the Women Leaders Council. Some will have seen the imaginative installation by Emma Thompson in Trafalgar square to publicise it. We need imaginative things such as that, but we also need hard work on human trafficking. Straight after these questions, I and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), and my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, will be going to Holland to explore what is being done there on human trafficking, on which, frankly, much more needs to be done.

Peter Bone: If she will bring forward proposals to amend standing orders to provide for debate on all programme motions.

Helen Goodman: We have no plans to bring forward motions to amend the present programming arrangements in this respect. These already allow for most such motions to be debated directly or, subject to the Chair, to be brought into debate on related business.

Harriet Harman: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 23 June—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Sale of Student Loans Bill, followed by motion to approve the draft Terrorism Act 2006 (Disapplication of Section 25) Order 2008, followed by motion to approve the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2008.
	Tuesday 24 June—Opposition Day [15th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate entitled 'Cost of Living', followed by a debate on the 60th anniversary of the NHS. Both debates will arise on an Opposition motion.
	Wednesday 25 June—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Planning Bill.
	Thursday 26 June—A general debate on the draft Legislative Programme.
	Friday 27 June—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 30 June will include:
	Monday 30 June—Opposition Day [16th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Tuesday 1 July—The House will be asked to approve Ways and Means resolutions on the Finance Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Finance Bill—day 1.
	Wednesday 2 July—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
	Thursday 3 July—Topical debate on Zimbabwe followed by motions relating to MPs' pay and allowances.
	Friday 4 July—The House will not be sitting.

Theresa May: I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for giving us the forthcoming business. As she has just announced, on 3 July we are scheduled to have a topical debate on Zimbabwe, but does she not think that the situation there is so serious that we should have not a one and a half hour debate but a full debate on the subject, in Government time? She announced that on 3 July we will also have two other debates—one on the Baker review on Members' pay, and the other on the Members Estimate Committee review of allowances—but we will have only four hours for them. Will she at least guarantee that on that day there will be no ministerial oral statements to eat further into the time available for debate?
	On 5 July we celebrate the 60th anniversary of the NHS, so may we have a debate before the summer recess on the NHS? Not only are a quarter of NHS trusts in England failing to meet at least one of the Government's standards on hygiene, but babies are being turned away from hospitals owing to a lack of cots and specialist staff. That comes at a time when the Government are closing maternity units across the country, so may we have a debate on NHS priorities?
	In the past week, there have been five separate security breaches, with Government documents and computers containing highly sensitive information being left on trains and stolen from offices. There have been clear breaches of security rules. That follows the Government's loss of the personal details of 25 million people last autumn. Clearly, there is a culture of carelessness at the heart of this Government. Last December, the Minister for the Cabinet Office told the House that a report would be published this spring on the procedure for and storage of sensitive data, yet we have heard nothing. Will the right hon. and learned Lady ensure that the report is published before the summer recess, and that Members will have the opportunity to challenge Ministers in this House and to ensure that data security is being improved?
	The Casey report, commissioned by the Prime Minister, calls for a revolution in the treatment of victims of crime, and claims that the criminal justice system is patronising in its attitude to the public. That comes on top of Sir Ian Blair saying that there is "almost no public faith" in crime figures in the UK, that Government police targets should be scrapped, and that there should be a return to common-sense policing. Crime levels are of grave concern to us all, so can we have a debate on approaches to policing and crime prevention?
	Finally, there will be an Opposition day debate on the cost of living next week. We face rising mortgage costs, growing unemployment, soaring prices for fuel, electricity, gas and food, and the prospect of higher interest rates. It is no good telling people that those are global issues and nothing to do with this Government. The Government have no room for manoeuvre because they failed to put money aside in the good times. Will the right hon. and learned Lady ensure that, before that Opposition day debate, the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes a full, clear statement showing that the Government are finally willing to take responsibility for their actions?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman raised a question that concerns everybody—the increase in fuel prices. He will know that the Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Committee has been looking into the operation of energy companies and energy prices. He will also bear in mind the fact that we have already taken action through the winter fuel payments to protect pensioners, through tax credits to help low-income families, particularly those with children, and through an insulation programme. My right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform are keeping a very clear focus on ensuring that the fuel and energy companies are competitive and play their part in these difficult times. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Prime Minister is going to Saudi Arabia to discuss oil supply. There will be an opportunity for Members who want to raise these issues to do so next week in the debates on the Finance Bill.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the opportunity that might present itself for much greater peace and a more hopeful future as between Israel and Palestine. I should like to thank Tony Blair for his work on this, which has been very important in the international process. Hon. Members will be aware that he gave evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee, which is looking into the issue.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about arms trading. There is a debate on defence procurement later today.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked an important question about dementia. There is a written ministerial statement by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), on the development of a national dementia strategy. This is a subject of great concern, given that the number of people aged over 85 is set to double over the next 20 years. There has been increased investment in the national health service and in social care, but we need to look at the trends and ensure that we prepare for them. As well as focusing on health and social services, one important element that we will not lose sight of is how we support families as they care for older relatives.
	The hon. Gentleman raised the important matter of the House of Lords judgment cutting back on anonymity for witnesses. We will consider that judgment. However, we are absolutely clear that we must ensure that offenders are brought to justice and that this is not such an ordeal for victims and witnesses that they dare not step forward. Should legislation be necessary, there will be an opportunity to bring forward measures in the law reform, victims and witnesses Bill that is to be included in the Queens Speech. The draft legislative programme will be debated next Thursday.

David Taylor: May I refer to my early-day motion 1839?
	[That this House is alarmed by the Government's proposal to abolish the requirement on employers to retain employers' liability compulsory insurance for 40 years; acknowledges that the existing law is poorly enforced; notes that the Government intend to introduce a statutory instrument before the summer recess to achieve this reform to employment and insurance law; recognises the significant distress of mesothelioma sufferers and their families who have been awarded industrial injury damages in court but cannot trace their former employers' insurers; believes that this inability to trace the insurers of employers whose workers were exposed to fatal asbestos dust as part of their work illustrates the need for insurance law to be strengthened not weakened; further believes that the Department for Work and Pensions' solution will absolve employers and their insurers from responsibility for future victims of industrial illnesses like mesothelioma who are diagnosed with a fatal industrial illness many years after exposure; and calls upon the Government not to introduce this statutory instrument to withdraw and to consult the public further on this matter.]  It draws attention to the Government's proposal to introduce before the summer recess a statutory instrument to weaken insurance law and remove the obligation on employers to retain compulsory employers liability insurance for 40 years. That would have a serious effect on those who are exposed to occupational hazards that are slow to show, such as mesothelioma. If the Leader of the House were to persuade the Government not to introduce that statutory instrument and to put it out to further consultation, that would create more space for the packed range of submissions that she is receiving this morning. The issue is serious and affects many thousands of people, and we do not know what many of them are being exposed to.

Richard Ottaway: As the Leader of the House said, the Baker report has been published and the Members Estimate Committee is about to be published. In the light of Sir Christopher Kelly's comments in the report that he has published in his capacity as chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, would it not be sensible to invite him formally to comment on both reports before we debate them on 3 July? After all, he chairs the committee whose job it is to maintain standards in public life and his comments will add credibility to our debates.

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend will know that the topic for debate this afternoon is eco-towns. I know that that is not exactly the point that he made, but the question is how we increase the housing supply. I will raise with my hon. Friends the housing need that he has identified and the important issues raised in that early-day motion and write to him, to let him how we plan to ensure that the House has an opportunity to debate them.

Caroline Flint: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. As I make progress in my speech, I will address the process of engagement involved. He referred to Hanley Grange as a proposal, and that is what it is. We asked for expressions of interest, and about 57 bids came in. We drew up a short list of 15, after looking at a number of issues, including whether the bids had the potential—I stress the word "potential"—to move forward to the next phase. Every proposal has been thoroughly interrogated, including in terms of looking at existing developments in the areas concerned and how they might complement any new developments or, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, how they might hinder development in other areas.
	This is work in progress, and there are no done deals on any of these sites. In this part of the process—prior to the short list that I will announce later in the year, and prior to the applications—it is healthy to ensure that we scrutinise the bids and get as much community engagement as possible in order to clarify the matters that local people, local authorities and parliamentary colleagues are concerned about.

Caroline Flint: Given the contribution of the built environment to our emissions, the challenge of tackling both housing supply and climate change must be faced. The eco-town programme allows us to see whether we can demonstrate within a whole town's development, and in the light of the skills, technology and innovation available, that this country can be a world leader in building the houses that we will need increasingly in the future. For example, we also face the challenge of meeting zero carbon emissions targets; we are working with the industry on that front and I think that eco-towns may offer something else to that process.
	The planning policy statement that we will produce in the next month will help to ensure that eco-towns are benchmarked against very high standards and it will also help local authorities that may be receiving submissions from developers who put "green" or "eco" in front of their applications to assess them. The process will allow us to develop the sort of tools that can be used better to define what eco and green really mean, what standards should apply to public transport and house building, what energy resources can be utilised and how waste can be better managed. That will be beneficial for the eco-town programme and it will add to the capacity of local authorities to make good decisions on other applications—not only now, but 10 or 20 years in the future.
	This is such as fast-moving area that we, too, will need to update as advances in technology are made. The work of my colleagues in the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform in looking at energy supply renewables is another factor that plays into the opportunities that both small and large-scale developments can offer. This is an exciting programme. It does not sit on its own; it complements the very important work that we must do across the built environment—commercial, as well as domestic.
	As I said, in view of the challenges that we face, we have to find new ways of designing and building our homes. We have to cut carbon emissions from our housing and build homes that are resilient and adaptable to a changing climate. The need for more housing and more sustainable housing is why we have developed the concept of eco-towns; we believe that in some way—they are not the only solution—they will allow us to address both needs.
	I also see eco-towns as making a substantial contribution to overall economic development. Jobs and homes are important to families. Where people live is important, but having a job to provide the means to buy a home and enjoy a successful family life is equally important. I commend the work done in the west midlands by the Minister for the West Midlands, who carried out a jobs and homes road show last year that incorporated all those factors.
	Some eco-towns are proposed for areas where a lack of housing is effectively putting a handbrake on economic growth, preventing businesses in the community from expanding as far as they could. For example, I recently visited one of the locations and saw that the local market town was absolutely bursting at the seams. There was no more room for building housing or business units without jeopardising the character that makes that market town so special. The local authority says that an eco-town location in the vicinity will allow it to do a number of things. First, it will be able to expand economically and continue to have a thriving local economy. That development will also prevent urban sprawl around the market town, while at the same time provide the much-needed homes for the community. I am talking about the Manby site in Lincolnshire. I was very pleased to visit that area and I shall be visiting all the other locations in the next month or two.

Caroline Flint: I want to make a bit of progress before giving way again.
	The Hanley Grange proposal in Cambridge—I acknowledge the concerns about that site—would build 8,000 homes on the borders of what is known as the Silicon Fen—the region's flourishing high-tech sector, which currently faces extreme house affordability pressure.

Caroline Flint: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we have never said that eco-towns are the only solution to the housing needs in this country? Does he not accept, though, that where there are opportunities for developments of this kind, they can contribute? Also, the nature of the development allows us to do things on green energy and sustainable living that sometimes are not possible within an already built environment.

Grant Shapps: So now we have it. This is not about building zero-carbon, sustainable communities; it is about experimentation with new technologies to see whether we can find new, greener ways to live. This is what is wrong with that approach: according to a speech made by the Minister earlier this week, it turns out that the new eco-town houses will not have to be built at sustainability code level 6. No, the greatest farce of all is the fact that they can be built at sustainability code level 3. When that happens, those eco-towns will be built at a lower environmental level than the houses that will in any case be built at the same time in 2016. I suggest to her that the entire project is now looking rather shabby to say the least.
	If the Minister does not agree about the minuscule nature of this grand plan and the fact that it will build very few homes, and if she does not agree that it will not be green because all homes will be more green than those are by the time they are built, perhaps I can tackle her on another issue that is causing considerable concern. It was said repeatedly that these eco-towns will contain up to 50 per cent. affordable housing. Then the Government said that that might be a bit tough, so make the figure one third. Then they said that the developers should aim for 30 per cent. Most recently, looking at the applications that have been submitted, we have learned that the affordable home element is just 26 per cent. In one development, the figure is just 10 per cent. affordable housing. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us on how those eco-towns live up even to the original spin—

Grant Shapps: I do not want to stretch the boundaries of the debate, but I think that the fundamental difference between Conservative and Labour Members is simply that we believe it is important to build more homes—more homes of every kind in every way. It is no good coming up with small schemes that are spun so that they sound as though they are the answer to problems to do with green issues or the supply of homes. Nor is it to come up with arbitrary numbers for affordability that may not in the end supply more homes overall.
	We know that the best way to improve affordability is to build more homes throughout the country, not just in the specific places and of the specific types that the Minister in Whitehall thinks are right. That brings us to the fundamental differences between us. In her opening comments, the Minister made it clear that the Government think that they are doing this because they wish to supply more housing to the marketplace, but for 11 years they have failed to build housing of any kind. The annual average over that period has been 145,000 new homes per year, compared with 176,000 in the preceding two decades.
	Moreover, the homes that have been built have been less affordable. Not once have the Government returned to the 1997 level of 28,000 affordable homes being built each year. Only 284 council homes were built last year, but that is the best that the Government have managed. They have never managed to equal the 1,500 plus affordable homes that the previous Conservative Government were still building in 1997.
	Given that the Government's record on housing is so lamentable, is it not somewhat surprising that they still come to this House with plans, policies, half-baked ideas and spin about eco-towns? They produce Green Papers and White Papers, all of which seem to forget the simple principle that they must work with local people and engage and incentivise local communities to come forward with plans that work for them. Such plans would fit with the desires of local populations, enhance their quality of life and improve the quality of housing locally. Without all that, these eco-towns will never be built.
	Although the Minister has said that that is exactly what the Government are doing, I would not mind putting a small wager on the number of eco-towns that will be built. To anyone who spends time taking a serious look at the project, it is obvious that there is very little chance that any of them will get that far.

Grant Shapps: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. The extraordinary thing about the project is that the Government's management and approach have been so incompetent that the eco-town to which he refers has been taken off the list entirely, in favour of another one nearby. The easy delivery of one eco-town that could have gone ahead has been deliberately stripped out of the plans, for reasons that perhaps the Minister will be able to explain when she comes to visit the sites in question. The eco-town project must have sounded like as great idea, but it has not survived investigation or being put under the spotlight.

Peter Luff: My hon. Friend is illustrating, as did my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), that this is a back-of-the-envelope idea that has not been properly thought through. Case study three in the consultation document is about Vauban in Germany. The Government have said that it has 500 residents, but in reality it has 5,000. It is by far the largest example of a so-called eco-town, but it is really an eco-suburb, being an extension of Freiberg and a 4-km tram ride from the centre of that town. Should not eco-towns be eco-suburbs? Vauban is right, but the Government's eco-town proposals are wrong.

Lembit �pik: I apologise to the hon. and learned Gentleman, who has my full support, for relocating his constituency into the city of Leicester.
	The Government do not seem to have understood the importance of vehicles in the new town proposals, because unless there is to be some utopian change in terms of public transport, it seems almost inevitable that these towns will prompt a massive increase in driving rather than an improvement in eco-friendly commuting.

Nick Gibb: The proposed Ford eco-town is a 350 hectare site on which developers propose to build 5,000 houses on ancient and beautiful Sussex countryside that is valued by my constituents in Littlehampton, Middleton-on-Sea, Felpham and Bognor Regis. That is why it is opposed by Arun district council and all the town and parish councils in the area, and why 1,500 marched on Saturday 7 June against the proposal. The site is 87 per cent. greenfield land and the majority of the remaining 13 per cent. is farmland in the curtilage of the airfield, which is why it is technically regarded as a brownfield site.
	What has concerned me most about the proposal is the poor ethics of the construction company, Wates Developments, which is part of the Wates Group. The introductory section of its prospectus for the eco-town, it states on page 3:
	Ford Airfield is a 360 hectare site comprising brownfield land between Littlehampton, Bognor Regis and Chichester.
	That sentence clearly conveys the impression that the 360 hectare site is made up of brownfield land when it is notit is 87 per cent. greenfield.
	I am also concerned that the Government are setting a new precedent in planning by publishing planning policy statements that are location specific, thereby removing any local discretion over the siting of new developments. Planning policy statements have always been issues of general principle and not diktats from central Government about particular developments.
	My final point is about the fact that the Government have said that Arun district council needs to meet its social and housing needs. It is not true that it has not. Some 13,000 houses are being built in Felpham and Berstead, 30 per cent. of which are affordable, and Arun district council's core strategy preferred option documents have allocated sufficient land to provide at least 9,500 houses, of which between 30 and 40 per cent. will be social housing.
	I hope that Ford will not appear on the final shortlist of eco-towns.

Nick Herbert: I add my concerns to those expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb). The tiny village of Ford lies in my constituency and is shortlisted to have an eco-town with 5,000 houses. That would make it by far the largest settlement in my constituency, irrevocably transforming the countryside and the small villages around it.
	My hon. Friend made a point about the misleading claims made by developers, and I want to reinforce that point to the Ministerthis is not a brownfield site. It has been described as Ford airfield, but 87 per cent. of the land is greenfield. When the Minister comes to visitI welcome her visit and hope to join hershe will see that it is largely beautiful open countryside at the foot of Arundel. It is of agricultural importance and is prime farmland. It is not, in the main, brownfield land. According to the figures, that makes up only 13 per cent. of the site and even less in terms of what is actually farmed. That is why the Campaign to Protect Rural England, although it supports the policy of eco-towns in general, has said that Ford is not an appropriate site.
	My main point is simply about local democracy. This is not an argument about the need for more affordable housing. We all recognise that, and Arun district council recognises it. Some 58,000 new houses will come to West Sussex over the next 20 years, and 11,300 of those will be in the Arun district. That number has already been upped by 2,000 from the recommendation of the South East England regional assembly, and it could be increased still further. Who should decide where these houses should go?

Kevan Jones: I fully support what is being done, because we need to balance the urgent operational requirements and the kit that we are now buying with the longer-term decisions. That is correct, but may I ask the Minister's civil servantshis Departmentto hold their hands up for once and say that things have changed? I tabled a parliamentary question about where the Mastiff fits in the future rapid effect system programme, only to be told this week that it does not. I am sorry, but that answer absolutely contradicts what Lord Drayson and Brigadier Applegate told me and the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) last year, when they said that the Mastiff was now part of the FRES family of vehicles. I should have thought that that was the correct approach. May I ask the Minister's civil servants, when they draw up the plans, to come back to reality rather than to the old script, which has clearly been ditched?

Patrick Mercer: I entirely take the point about a mix of vehicles being necessary for protection, accessibility and flexibility for the commander. The fact remains that I was involved in procurement programme for Snatch some 15 or 16 years ago, and those vehicles were almost over-matched by the relatively benign circumstances of patrolling on asphalt in Northern Ireland. They are entirely unsuitable for operations in Afghanistan. They are there because they are all that the militarythe Army, in particularhave got. I understand that this is a difficult equation, but could the Minister assure us that Snatch will be taken from service in Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as is humanly possible?

Bob Ainsworth: My hon. Friend asks an important question. Through the urgent operational requirements process, we look not just at what we use and what we produce in this country, but at what is available throughout the world. The Ridgback is an up-armour of an American vehicle, doing precisely the sort of thing that my hon. Friend asks about. It is considered the best. Its potential is at the level of that of the Mastiff, but its capability, in terms of where it can get to, will be greater because of its smaller size.
	Looking forward, the future rapid effects system programme will, in the words of General Dannatt,
	form the backbone of the Army's future armoured vehicle requirements.
	The provisional selection of the Piranha 5 as the preferred design for the FRES utility vehicle is an important milestone and demonstrates our continued commitment to the FRES programme. The programme will deliver a fleet of medium vehicles capable of operating across a range of need. We will ensure that FRES variants are protected against the most likely threats, including mine blasts. That protection will be built into the requirement for the vehicle. The FRES programme will deliver a fleet of vehicles able to go to more places via more varied routes, and to fulfil a greater number of tasks than any protected vehicle currently in our inventory. It will be a truly versatile tool in a commander's armoury. Let there be no doubt: FRES will have relevance to current operations.
	We have increased the level of helicopter support that we provide to commanders on operations. Helicopters are, as was said, a key part of the force package, and essential for our forces' in-theatre mobility. That is why, since March last year, we have increased the number of helicopter flying hours we provide in Afghanistan by more than 33 per cent., including increases in Chinook and Apache hours. That uplift has not just been achieved through an increase in the number of helicopters we have deployed. In some fleets, we have achieved the uplift in hours without an increase in the number of helicopters. By driving through efficiencies in our logistics support, capability is made up as much by the people who crew and maintain the platforms and the logistics chain, as it is by the platforms themselves.
	I saw that myself during a recent visit to RAF Odiham, the home of the Chinook force. Chinooks are a proven battle-winning capability and have been heavily committed on operations for the past seven years. The men and women of the Chinook force are working as hard as anyone in the military to support our current operations. I was enormously impressed by the dedication of all the people I met, from the pilots who crew the helicopters to those who maintain and support them.
	Working with Boeing and the integrated project team in Bristol, the Chinook force has totally transformed maintenance support. In the past three years, it has reduced the time that a Chinook spends in deep maintenance by 45 per cent. and the time for smaller repairs by 59 per cent., through a combination of improvements in working practice and operating with Boeing as closely as possible. Above all, it has kept a relentless focus on what is really importantin this case, the flying hours that we provide to commanders in Afghanistan. That is how it has given us a 33 per cent. increase in Chinook flying hours in the past three years.
	That is the future for defence procurement and equipment supporta combination of innovation, focus on results and dedication to team working, hand in hand with our partners in industry. That is the only way in which we can make the improvement that we need in supporting the front line while delivering the best possible value for the taxpayer.
	We hear a lot about the failings of defence procurement. With good reason, people home in on our shortcomings; effective public accountability demands exactly that. But let the whole House realise that many real gains are being made. The application of new methods and improved systems have allowed us to improve significantly the equipment that we provide to our troops on the front line. It is our people, often working in very difficult conditions, who must take the credit for those improvements. I hope that the whole House will join me in saluting their efforts.

Gerald Howarth: The tragic deaths of nine British servicemen and women in the past few days should serve to remind us of the critical importance of this, our annual review of the equipment programme for our armed forces. At the outset, I join the Minister in paying tribute to Corporal Sarah Bryant of the Intelligence Corps and to Corporal Sean Reeve, Lance Corporal Richard Larkin and Paul Stout for their sacrifice for our country. We remember today all those who have given their lives in the current conflicts, and we salute their comrades-in-arms, who, despite the loss of close friends and colleagues, do not flinch from continuing to take the fight to the enemy.
	Today we are all greatly indebted also to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) and his colleagues on the Select Committee on Defence for their valuable contribution in their most recent report on defence equipment. I was privileged to be a member of the Committee, which manages on a cross-party basis to serve its purpose of finding out what is going on and reporting it to the House. It provides us with expert and considered advice, which is appreciated.
	Last week in Westminster Hall we had a preliminary discussion, most ably led by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton). As the Minister knows, she has made armoured vehicles her specialist subject. She would have liked to participate today, but she is on parliamentary duties in Westminster Hall as a member of the Chairmen's Panel and therefore cannot be with us.
	Although reference has been made to individual programmes, the whole issue of defence equipment procurement, including the process of acquisition itself, needs to be covered. Clearly, our immediate concern must be to ensure that we provide those on the front line in Afghanistan and Iraq with the kit that they need to fight today's war. However, the task does not end there, nor can it. With the certainties of the cold war gone, we find ourselves in a much more complex world in which it is much harder to predict where conflicts will arise.
	In my viewas the Minister knows, I expressed it last week in the Westminster Hall debateit would be a foolish politician who chose to concentrate solely on the here and now and to close his eyes to threats that could arise in the future. We must remember that it is capabilities that count, not intentions. Intentions can change overnight, but capabilities, as we know to our cost, take time to be changed.
	It is in that context that we should view, with concern, the Government's relentless run-down of the Royal Navy's surface fleet, from 35 to 22, and falling. In its report, the Defence Committee questioned
	whether it is ever likely
	that the revamped Nimrod MRA4 will deliver the capability needed. As former President, now Prime Minister Putin expands his arsenal, not least his submarine fleet, should we be cavalier about dispensing with the long-range anti-submarine capability provided by the Nimrod?
	On the plus side, we believe that the decision to replace Trident was an example of essential longer-term planning consistent with the need to continue to prepare for a range of threats as yet unidentified. Mention was made in Westminster Hall last week of the Gates doctrine, according to which we need to concentrate on the actual war, not a possible war. I well understand that, but the people of this country would be very concerned if the House took such a short-sighted view as to think that we could rule out, for the foreseeable future orheaven forbideven over our lifetimes, the possibility of state-upon-state conflict. Defence has always been an insurance policy, and that applies no less today than it did in the past; indeed, it probably applies more today than in the past. The only difference is that today we are fighting actual conflicts for which we have to provide.
	The Minister ended his remarks by saying that some felt that there had been failures, which he was prepared to acknowledge. The Government are in complete disarray in their procurement programme. Let me go through some of the examples. Chinook helicopters intended for our vital special forces operations have been grounded for seven years while Ministers have tried to work out what to do.

Gerald Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as I am sure the House will be, for making that point. I warmly endorse everything that he has said. Indeed, that is one reason why we have to maintain an integral British defence industrial base, without which we would not have access to that kind of spirited national effort in times of conflict.
	The Defence Export Services Organisation, which delivered huge benefits to the United Kingdom, was scrapped at the behest of an ennobled Treasury official, possibly in cahoots with the Campaign Against Arms Trade. The second instalment of the defence industrial strategy has been lost in the Department, if not on one of South West Trains. I could go on, but I will not, because time is limited. It is little wonder that the one man with a grasp of the issues and the ability to make decisions, Lord Drayson, threw in the towel at the end of last year to go motor racing, leaving the defence industry with no clear vision of the Government's strategy.
	The recent equipment planning round for 2008EP08has proved so unsatisfactory that the Government have invented a stalling device that they have called an equipment examination, which is set to take three months. The House will be interested to know what the Minister has said this afternoon. Apparently, it is to be a short examination designed to look at a 10-year requirement. The Minister needs to make up his mind whether this has been designed to provide a reflective peace in order to wrestle with some of the longer-term issues to which I have already referred, or, as we all suspect, it is a stalling device designed to get the Government through planning round '08 or '09. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire was absolutely right to say that we have no idea whether PR08 has been concluded or not [ Interruption. ] The Minister says that he has just told us. Perhaps he will tell us when that short examination is going to report to the House. I will give way to him if he would like to put that on record now [ Interruption. ] For the benefit of my right hon. and hon. Friends, he says it will be in a few months.

Gerald Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information, which I did not know. I am sure that the whole House will also be grateful to him and that the Under-Secretary will want to respond to that information in his winding-up speech.
	The Minister referred to further helicopter capability, and we indeed have another six Merlins, which we have acquired from Denmark, but which will not enter service until they have been modified for current operations. However, those programmes are essentially one-offs with, as I understand it, little in the way of planned through-life support.
	I understand that the Danish Merlins, unlike the ones ordered by the UK, carry the traffic alert and collision avoidance systemTCAStogether with weather radar, but they will not be maintained once they become unserviceable. TCAS would prevent the loss of life in mid-air collisions and I find it hard not to have contempt for a deliberate decision to refuse to maintain a life-saving piece of equipment. As a result of acquiring one-off pieces of equipment such as those I have mentioned, we find that there is no consistency across the fleet, with a multitude of variants having to be maintained, all of which adds to the cost.
	There seems to be agreement between us that there needs to be a fundamental review of the procurement process so that we develop an ability to respond much more swiftly to the rapidly shifting nature of the threat while being able to fit the new equipment into a coherent overall core programme. I accept that that is no easy task, but it must be undertaken. The Treasury needs to be part of the process so that it can understand why its agreement to fund the simple acquisition of a UOR should not be the end of its responsibility.
	I note that the Defence Committee has again expressed concern about the skills available to the MOD so that it is able to monitor procurement projects. The Ministry needs to ensure that project development personnel with experience of controlling major projects are brought in from the private sector so that the MOD has the benefit of serious commercial knowledge that enables the customer to be an informed one and not be taken for a ride by industry. Alongside such savvy commercial people, I accept that we need military personnel with current knowledge of the kit in question.
	Under proposals made by Lord Drayson in the defence industrial strategy, British industry, which plays such an important role in supporting our armed forces, had some idea of where the Government were going. The Minister is correct: today, it is extremely unhappy and has no sense of direction. Lord Drayson's strategy is clearly set out in paragraph A1.16 of the defence industrial strategy:
	Promoting an overall business environment which is attractive to defence companies and investors... identifying key industrial capabilities which are important to Defence to retain in the UK industrial base to maintain appropriate sovereignty, with sustainment strategies where these seem at risk.
	We agree with that assessment. The Astute submarine programme ran into trouble in part because of skill fadethe loss of key skills to build the boatsand it is essential that we do not allow that situation to prevail.
	Equally, we need to maintain investment in defence research. The defence technology strategy acknowledged as much when it said that today's battle-wining kit is the result of yesterday's investment. A programme of technology demonstrators may be one way of ensuring that we keep feeding the research base.
	It is important to preserve Britain's world-class research base not only for the benefit of our own forces but so that we have something to bring to the party with the US. The moment when we cease to be such a contributor, we shall become a supplicant, and that would dramatically alter the relationship. I know that the right hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), the former Secretary of State who is now the Government Chief Whip, felt that ownership of Britain's defence industry to be of little consequence. Since he made that assertion some four years ago, however, two of our major enterprisesBAE Systems and QinetiQ, both of which happen to have their headquarters in my constituencyhave been developing faster in the US than in the UK.
	At the same time, many of our smaller companies are being acquired by overseas interests, such as Thales from France and Finmeccanica from Italy. There is clearly an element of the inevitable about that, thanks to globalisation, but if we want to maintain a vibrant defence industry in the UK, we must ensure that investors can see an income stream.

Gerald Howarth: The hon. Gentleman, who plays such a vigorous role in our debates will be pleased to hear that I shall come to that in a moment.
	The Minister needs to tell us when we can expect DIS 2. In the other place, his colleague Baroness Bolton told my noble Friend Lord Astor that it was anticipated that DIS 2 would be brought forward, but that no date had been set. We, and British industry, would like to know when that will happen.
	I am the first to acknowledge that foreign companies such as Thales and Finmeccanica make important contributions to the UK's defence effort

Gerald Howarth: My point is that we must remember that investment decisions are taken at head office. If most of the relevant head offices are outside the UK, we need to bear that in mind.
	For its part, industry needs to accept that the current economic outlook is pretty bleak. It will have to smarten up yet further its processes, as we shall seek to secure better value for money for the taxpayer.
	I am concerned about the three prototype Nimrod MRA4s, and gather that BAE Systems is demanding a substantial amount of money to bring them on line. The failure of the Nimrod programme lies wholly at the company's door: it is the design authority for that aeroplane, and it has a responsibility to the nation to deliver it into service very quickly. It is hugely needed for current operations, as well as for the future.
	On a positive note, British industry's attainment of a record 10 billion in defence sales last yearto which the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith) alludedunder the outstanding leadership of Alan Garwood was a singular milestone. It is a tribute to the co-operation between industry and the Ministry of Defence, but that collaboration was shatteredutterly needlessly but wilfullyby the Prime Minister last July. That was an act of vandalism that I am pleased to report will be reversed immediately when the Conservative party assumes office. It is a sign of the transfer of power in this area that my question to the Ministry of Defence about how many foreign military delegations had visited UK Trade and Investment since that act of vandalism has been transferred to the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.

Gerald Howarth: I entirely agree. I think that some of those offices could be closed without huge damage being done to the United Kingdom's defence industry, but the closure of othersI note that the Finland office, for example, is earmarked for closurestrikes me as evidence that the Foreign Office has demanded more money from the Ministry of Defence, which it is having to apply to current operations.
	Paragraph A1.21 of Defence Industrial Strategy states:
	We must maintain the appropriate degree of sovereignty over industrial skills, capacities, capabilities and technology to ensure operational independence.
	That brings me to the subject of the joint strike fighter. We are equity partners in that major United States programme, but the US has been reluctant all along to allow us full operational sovereignty over the aircraft that we acquire. That cannot be right, and is no way in which to treat a key ally. We have experienced no problems with the arrangements regarding the operation of our Trident submarines, and the US should not hesitate to give us the sovereignty that we require over the joint strike fighter. Perhaps Ministers can tell us how matters stand, and whether the Government are continuing to insist that if Lockheed Martin is to have any role in the maintenance of the aircraft, it must perform that role from a facility within the United Kingdom.
	I suspect that I am not alone in being extremely concerned about the treatment of senior BAE Systems personnel at the hands of the United States Department of Justice. The fact that our key ally had detained as common felons the chief executive, a non-executive director and the group business development director should have had the Prime Minister on the telephone to the President of the United States forthwith. I understand that one of those detained was met by five armed guards, and that his luggage was searched for an hour while they awaited a subpoena warrant.
	I also understand that there is to be a grand jury hearing next month, when the United States will seek information on the UK-Saudi deal. That was a Government-to-Government deal between Her Majesty's Government and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and is not the business of the United States. Perhaps we should demand to see its memorandums of understanding with the Israelis.

Bruce George: I was about to deliver a eulogy on the Defence Committee, not only under my chairmanship but under that of the right hon. Gentleman. Its reportsincluding on defence equipment 2008 and on defence industrial strategyare excellent and quite remarkable.
	My response to the right hon. Gentleman's question was to have been my conclusion, but I shall give it early: we have to determine the defence budget based not just on what money is available but on the need. If the need is high, the budget has to be increased. Too many historical examples should persuade any people in the Ministry of Defence who has read historyI am sure that many of them havethat to do otherwise is profoundly unwise, because when they find out that they have made a mistake they will have retired and the consequences for the political and bureaucratic classes are potentially devastating. We have lived through enough historic failures to convince people that history cannot be thrown aside on graduation.
	I strongly argueI am not saying this just for the benefit of the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) or because of his interventionthat a lot has been done to enhance procurement. I will not go into the arguments about defence expenditure collapsing under the Tories or the enormous expenditure dedicated by this Government, but we have now reached the point in terms of personnel and equipment where it is inadequate to take the stance that is being taken. If equipment is inadequate, lives are lost and wars can be lost. The Government are doing a pretty good job, but we are getting close to the point where someone in office will have to rattle the Treasury's cage and say that the budget has fallen to such a level that if it continues to do so it will not just be undesirable but could have serious consequences.
	Going back to my pro-Government mode, I should say that what emerged from the SDR was quite remarkable. We have seen smart procurement, smart acquisition, integrated project teams and the creation of all sorts of thingsresource accounting and budgeting, public-private partnerships, private finance initiatives and partnering. The list goes on and on. Then we see the developments coming out of the EUI will not spend much time on themor NATO. There is defence industrial policy, on which we produced an excellent report in 2002, and then there is defence industrial strategy. The list of initiatives is a long one.
	I have read the Defence Committee reports about new developments, stocktake, the Defence Procurement Agency forward teams and so onthere has been so much activity. However, I would want to see more evidence that endeavour, activity, research and so on had brought us close to solving the problems that have so far eluded Governments.
	Jeremy Blackham, whom most of us know well, wrote an article for the Royal United Services Institute, or RUSI, about what he called the wicked problemsthe almost insoluble problems that face all Governments. I fear that we have an enormous task to do before we achieve the equipment that we require.

Nick Harvey: Not to mention the icebergs.
	It is essential that we always keep such considerations in mind. However, were we to find ourselves involved in any hostilities with the likes of Russia or China, it would be quite beyond our capacity to hold them at bay on our own. Although we must be prepared for the possibility of such engagements, we can prepare only in concert with our military allies. It is not necessary or desirable for the United Kingdom to attempt to defend itself across a broad front entirely from our own resources. We must co-operate with our NATO and European allies to make better use of equipment and personnel. That may occasionally mean a greater willingness to buy off the shelf to meet short-term needs, and we must find ways of speeding up procurement in order to limit waste and inefficiency.
	For that reason, I, like others, have said several times in the Chamber that we clearly need another strategic defence review. I welcome the Government's conduct of various small-scale reviews of certain aspects of defence policy, but it is now 10 years since we had a strategic defence review, and as I have said before, the Americans conduct one every four years. It is high time that we went through that exercise again. To take the point that was just made, it may be necessary for the Treasury to recognise the need for more resources, but frankly that could be done only off the back of another strategic defence reviewnot one whose aim from the outset was to reduce the defence budget, but one that examined our foreign policy needs and objectives and then began to build a defence capability that was in tune with, and responsive to, them.
	The Ministry of Defence has set out in its defence plan its strategic objectives for the coming three years:
	Achieve success in the Military Tasks we undertake at home and abroad... Be ready to respond to the tasks that might arise...Build for the future.
	They are all worthy objectives, and they should apply at any stage, but I still believe that something more fundamental by way of a review is necessary.
	Last year, the Defence Committee raised concerns about the MOD's 20 biggest weapons projects, which are 2.6 billion over budget and a total of 36 years behind schedule. This month we learned that the Prime Minister has instructed defence chiefs to delay replacing old weapons, vehicles and aircraft in order to try to ease the 2 billion black hole, which looks set to be even bigger in a couple of years' time. There is a debate to be had about the merits of salami slicing or deciding that we have to review our commitments and what we are trying to do.
	The hon. Member for Aldershot quoted from the White Paper, Defence Industrial Strategy, and said that it was necessary for us to have an appropriate degree of independent British defence industrial capability to ensure operational independence. He was right to identify the phrase and to quote from it. However, the key word is appropriate. There are sometimes points at which we may have gone too far in trying to defend the concept of independence. A great deal more could be done to ensure our capability to respond in the short term, as well as provide better value for money for our taxpayers, by giving a little ground on the concept of independence and being more willing to look around at what our allies are doing, so that what we are doing dovetails with that.
	The hon. Member for Aldershot shuddered with horror at what President Sarkozy was reported as having said and suggested that the Government might be in a dialogue with him about the possibility of, as the hon. Gentleman put it, a time-share of our aircraft carriers. He took the point a bit far, although I would share his concern if that was really what was proposed.
	However, whatever we do in future we will do in concert with our allies. If we are going to invest in such enormous things as aircraft carriers, as I believe we should, it is essential that we view them not only as British assets but as NATO assets that we share with our allies. It is entirely right and appropriate to have discussions with others about the exact use to which the aircraft carriers will be put and how we can co-operate on ensuring that maximum value is extracted from such a massive investment. We need to think about how we extract the best long-term value from undertaking a programme on that scale.

John Smith: I will abide by your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and keep my remarks as brief as possible. I welcome the opportunity to take part in this afternoon's debate and begin by associating myself with the remarks of all the Front-Bench speakers who have paid tribute to the work of our armed forces and to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in recent days.
	I have the honour and privilege of having the Special Forces support unit in my constituency. According to long tradition and protocol, we do not draw attention in the Chamber to the work that it does, but the House needs to be reminded of the sacrifices that are made, and the courage that is shown, by the men and women of the Special Forces every day. Their acts of selflessness are almost indescribable, and I would like to place that on record.
	Defence procurement has been one of the most difficult issues facing any Government for as long as we can remember, but successive Governments over the years have done their best to try to improve the procurement system. I remember that when this Government entered into the strategic defence review, one of the first things that the Defence Minister responsible did was to call all the previous Defence Ministers into his office for unofficial private meetings. He asked them what they would do if they wanted to achieve greater efficiencies and improvements to the procurement system. The irony was that most of them said exactly the same thing; they said what they would like to happen. However, the problem lies in getting from the wish to the reality, and the Government have tried with varying degrees of success over the last decade to improve the procurement system.
	I will confine my remarks in my brief contribution to what I believe is one of the Government's most important procurement initiatives in an area that is often underestimated and undervalued. When we talk about procurement in these annual debates, we tend to talk exclusively about kittanks, planes and shipsand sophisticated technology. However, if we do not train our servicemen and women in the most up-to-date, state-of-the-art methods so that they can use this equipment, quite frankly, we will not get the benefits and our service personnel will not get the security that they have a right to demand. The British armed forces have a problem in that much of their training is 20th-century training provided for 21st-century challenges and technologies. That has got to change.
	I am delighted that the Government have bitten the bullet, as the House well knows, and decided to undertake a massive transformation in this country's provision of military training. The defence procurement project to which I refer is, of course, the 11 billion military training academy proposed for St. Athan, which is going to modernise, update and completely transform how training is delivered. It will move away from chalk and talk, which has served us well in the past, towards student-centred and task-oriented training that uses the most modern technology available.
	Members on both sides of the House have referred to the sophistication and changing nature of the threat we face. We have to procure equipment, whether it be Snatch vehicles or anything else, to meet those changes. At the same time and in many respects more important, we also need to be quick in changing how we train our personnel to use the new equipment and face the new threats that they are up against. The older methods of providing such training served us hugely well in the past, but they are antiquated and out of date now. By integrating new technologies, we can have a step change or a quantum leap in the training of our personnel. They should be trained to the highest possible standards and we need the maximum flexibility to train and retrain them in how to use the new equipment and face the new challenges. We cannot do that under the existing system.
	It is more than seven years since the Government published their report on modernising defence training as part of the strategic defence review and we have seen a radical and incredibly successful transformation of how we train our officer corps. The creation of the idea for a military academy for training our officers in leadership and management on a tri-service integrated basis is important and nobody questions the success of it. Seven years on, however, we are still waiting for this academy to be provided, although the key decisions have now thankfully been taken so that we can provide the rest of our service personnel with the same modern futuristic training in phase 2 and phase 3, which is effectively technical skills training. The Government have already made the decision that two thirds of that trainingin aeronautics, mechanics, electrical engineering, information and communications technologywill be provided at the new huge military training academy on a 500-acre site in my constituency. That will have a dramatic effect on the efficiency and security of our armed forces, but we need to move ahead with it quickly.
	The Government announced in January that the so-called package 1 of the defence training rationalisation programme will continue apace under the auspices and leadership of the Metrix consortium. We have been expecting an announcementit was due in the spring, I believeon Main Gate 2, which is the next stage in this sophisticated procurement process. That decision has not arrived yet. Will the Minister give notice of when he thinks it will, because the sooner we get the project moving forward, the more our services will benefit?
	This, however, is a question not just of capability or of providing 21st century training for 21st-century challenges, rather than 20th-century training methods for 21st-century challenges, but of meeting our commitment to our servicemen and women under the military covenant and with regard to the relationship with the rest of society. We train our military personnel to a high standard, but more often than not the skills we give them are not recognised when they finish their military career and move into civvy street. Often, there is a delay in their finding work, although about 70 per cent. of service personnel find a job within a month of finishing service life, which is very good and a tribute to their calibre. About 94 per cent. find a job within six months.
	I understand that the main reason for that six-month delay is that many of our servicemen and women, even though they are highly trained in skills such as engineering, have to retrain to do in civvy street the same job that they were doing in the military. There are a number of such examples in my constituency, where large numbers of military personnel retire from the forces and seek work.
	The other great attraction of the defence training rationalisation programme is the fact that all the qualifications provided in engineering, computing and all those other areas will be recognised civilian qualifications. We will be able to say to our servicemen and women, We will not only train you in the military to the highest standard, but you will be able to use that training when you finish your service.

John Smith: Not particularly. I would like to concentrate on the future and what we intend to do to improve the situation and get things right. We owe it to our service personnel to do just that, and the best thing we can do is progress this vital procurement project as quickly as we can.
	Under the strategic defence review, when we said that we needed to reconfigure and restructure our forces to meet the new types of challenge, we then had to buy the modern kit and equipment to meet those same challenges. The most important thing was to train our personnel properly in modern techniques and in a modern way so that they could meet those challenges well. We have left that till last, and the Government need to get the matter absolutely right.
	Recently, I had the privilege of visiting the headquarters of Metrix, which is in the QinetiQ facility at Farnborough. I have just realised that I owe the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) an apology because, even though it was a private meeting, I should have written to him and told him that I was visiting his beautiful constituency. The training briefing that I received from Paul Swinscoe of Raytheon was one of the most impressive that I have ever heard. He told me how the training provided for our service personnel was to be modified, and anyone in the Chamber familiar with traditional apprenticeship training will know that it was very effective but a bit long winded. When I was a little boy it took seven years, but by the time that I left school it took only three. The old saying was that people would be in class all day listening to the instructor, but that some might get their hands on a bit of equipment if they were very lucky. However, the modern techniques are incredible: the use of virtual reality means that all students will be completely familiar with their equipment, whether it is an engine or a computer, before they set eyes on it or are expected to work with it. There has been a real transformation in the way that people are to be trained.
	I pay tribute to the Ministry of Defence and to Metrix for the work that they are doing in my area. They are working very closely with the local community in my constituency. The development covers 500 acres and, to put the project into perspective, I can tell the House that it is bigger than the London Olympic bid. For the past 12 months, there has been an ongoing dialogue with the local community in St. Athan in the Vale of Glamorgan, and that has worked extremely well. Both organisations have listened to the community, and amended some of their proposals accordingly.
	The local authority is also working really well on progressing the planning application for what is a huge development. I am sure that the Minister will understand that there is concern in my constituency that the planning is got right. There are two areas of particular concernhousing and the transportation infrastructurethat I hope that he will look at, perhaps in liaison with the integrated project team under Brigadier Neild.
	The development will provide 1,200 courses, and train thousands of students every year. Although there may be another new development quite close to the base, we do not have to worry about service accommodation. As part of the military covenant, the site will provide more than 90 per cent. of trainees with the best single-person accommodation in the world. It will all be brand new and purpose builtand so it should be. The new centre of excellence will make a wonderful impression on young recruits, but the people who work thereboth MOD and civilianwill also need to live nearby. Therefore, it would be a good idea for the Ministry to talk to the Vale of Glamorgan council, the local planning authority. Its local development plan must provide sufficient new housing to meet the needs of the staff who will be coming into the area.
	On transport, the Welsh Assembly Government has given a commitment to providing a surface link to the M4 before the academy opens. It is consulting Arup and considering the various options, and the Ministry of Defence and the Welsh Assembly Government must engage in close dialogue to make sure that the procurement project is advanced as soon as possible.
	I am grateful for the Government's courage in grasping the nettle when it comes to training. The project is going to be huge and complex. Various sites will have to be rationalised, and all the services brought together. That will be a huge challenge for us, but I genuinely believe that it is probably one of the most important challenges that we face. I think that if we meet the training challenge, we shall be the envy of the world.

James Arbuthnot: Yes. In fact, I was about to say something about the defence industrial strategy. The original strategy provided the vision that, for the first time ever, the Ministry of Defence would set out what the United Kingdom defence industry was going to do, what it was not going to do, where it should be developing its investments and what it should be planning for the future. The budget was to be clear, which is why the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was signed up to the strategy. Then Lord Drayson left and the premiership changedalthough not in that orderand seemed to break down. In November last year, we were told that Defence Industrial Strategy 2, which we had expected to be published before the end of last year, had to be delayed for a few months until the 2008 planning round.
	It seemed sensibleand industry seemed generally to support itfor the planning round to inform precisely where the defence industrial strategy was going. Unfortunately, the planning round itself seemed to run into the sand. I was delighted to hear today, for the first time, that it has actually finished, although I am not entirely sure what has come out of it. It seems that we are now looking forward to some sort of review that will go into the 2009 planning round. We are told that it will be published some time in the next few months, but we were told that about Defence Industrial Strategy 2 last year.
	Where is the industry in all of this? It seems to have had the dialogue it had with Lord Drayson under the defence industrial strategy completely cut off. There seems to have been virtually no dialogue, so how can the industry decide where it is to invest and where things are going? There seems to be a sense that the industry does not know what is happening because no one else does either. It is worrying that a sense of paralysis is coming from the MOD, and it is caused, frankly, by a budget that is so tight, given the level of operations we are facing, that things are beginning to break.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) spoke about the defence Export Services Organisation. When I was the Minister for Defence Procurement, making all these mistakes that have been referred to from the other side of the House, I found that DESO was an absolutely outstanding organisation. It did really good work for this country and provided a link between the uniformed personnel, the industry and the MOD that was really valuable overseas. If the transfer of DESO to the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform breaks that beneficial link, it will be a tragedy. I believe it probably will, frankly. I was delighted that my hon. Friend said that a future Conservative Government would reverse that policy.
	After all this muddle over the planning rounds, we have had a succession of different announcements. They do not seem to have been informed by any particular strategy on procurement, but we have had a welcome announcement on the future strategic tanker aircraft. The manufacturers seemed a bit surprised that we were buying that capability in the way we were, implying to the Defence Committee that it was probably a rather expensive and time-consuming way of achieving something that the Australians seemed to have achieved in a far shorter time scale. Nevertheless, the FSTA is a welcome renewal of a capability that we definitely need.
	I am delighted that we are closer to having some clarity on the carriers. Industry in this country will be pretty pleased that it has been announced that a contract will be signed. I understand that the contract for the carriers will be signed once the new ship company has had all the shareholder consultation that is necessary. I hope we have some clarity by the end of July.
	The trouble with the carrier decision is that it initially came out of the strategic defence review at the end of the 1990s, which was based on a surface fleet that was going to be much larger than our current surface fleet. It will now take such a high proportion of the defence budget that many peopleSir Michael Quinlan wrote an article in the  Financial Times in Februarywill wonder whether this capability should be provided in a different way. These are questions that need to be considered and answered. The point about the Type 45s being reduced to six is a worrying one. It does not look as though Britain, as a maritime power, will have the footprintif that is an appropriate thing to talk of in maritime termsaround the world with the number of ships we need. There is a definite quality in quantity.
	The hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) said that perhaps the Government had made the right decision, and that we need more ships but they may not need to be Type 45s. However, it seems to me that the decisions we are taking reduce the number of ships that we have, and therefore the influence and reach of the Royal Navy, in a way that is potentially devastating to the influence of this country.
	I would like to know how many joint strike fightersthe things to go on the aircraft carrierswe are going to get. The initial announcement was that we were going to get up to 150 joint strike fighters. All in this House know what up to means; it means fewer than. Thus we will get fewer than 150 joint strike fighters, and I understand that each aircraft carrier will be able to take 36 of them. The Ministry of Defence has just told the Defence Committee that there was never any intention to deploy two aircraft carriers with a full complement of joint strike fighters at the same time, and I do not know what consequences that statement will have.
	Nevertheless, this will be a very capable aircraft. When I originally saw the proposals for the aircraft, I was very enthusiastic about it, partly because it would give us access to new technology, particularly on stealth matters, and partly because each aircraft was going to cost only $33 million. The price seems to have gone up a bit since then, and there seems to have been a bit of difficulty with the international traffic in arms regulationsITARas to whether we get access to the new technology.

Michael Jack: I should like to associate my comments with those of other right hon. and hon. Members about the brave members of our armed forces who have sacrificed their lives in operational theatres such as Iraq and Afghanistan. That was brought home to me only too graphically when an officer whom I got to know completed his tour of duty in Iraq and within a few months was having to tell his family that this year there would be no summer holiday with him present because he had to go back to Iraq. That brings home in human terms exactly what tours of duty really mean, particularly for those who are left behind in this country.
	Equally, none of the equipment programmes that we have discussed could occur were it not for the skilled personnel of the defence companies of this country. I think particularly of the BAe Systems work force at Warton in my constituencythe engineers, software developers and so forth. Without the human dimension, none of these systems would be possible.
	I am struck by one of the overriding themes of the debate, which was built on by the comments of the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) about the British contribution. I am a great believer in what the United Kingdom's defence industrial base can do, either singularly or working in concert with our partners in Europe, to ensure that we maintain a capability over which we have some degree of control. That was recently brought home to me when I read in the newspapers of the possible removal of senior air force personnel in the United States after its new Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, questioned some of the blunders that had been made. In the same article, questions were raised about the future of American programmes such as the F22a highly complex, very expensive fighter that had attracted the attention of the Japanese in meeting their own air defence requirement. If that programme were to be sacrificed, the overtures that BAe Systems has been making to the Japanese about a possible purchase of the Eurofighter Typhoon would have much better prospects. Unless we can keep such programmes going, export opportunities such as that to Japan, or possibly even, in the long term, to India, will not arise. I could not support the idea that in future we should simply sacrifice our defence procurement requirements to whatever comes off the shelf from somebody else; that is not tenable. The example of the possible export of the Eurofighter illustrates why we must have control over those capabilities.

Michael Jack: I concur with my hon. Friend's contribution; I am glad that he underscores the importance of what I have said. In the aerospace industry, we are good at doing what we are doing, whether constructing aircraft, missiles, radar or ancillary equipment, or, in the case of Rolls-Royce, helping to build, in concert with others, the engines that power those aircraft.
	I salute the Government for their investment with BAe Systems in the further development of unmanned and autonomous air vehicles, which is very much what future, post-Eurofighter Typhoon projects will be based on. However, if we are to make those projects work, or to update projects such as the Eurofighter Typhoon, we must keep in place the skilled work forces to enable the job to be done. That brings us essentially to the role of the Government as the single most important customer for those companies and technologies, and underscores the need to ensure that the objectives of the defence industrial strategy and the defence technology strategy weave their way through what the MOD does in future.
	I was concerned when my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, indicated that there might have been a breakdown in the work of the noble Lord Drayson on the partnership arrangements, of which he was the author, that were evolving with industry under the defence industrial strategy. If that breakdown becomes reality, the chance of sustaining such teams of experts becomes ever more difficult.
	The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East mentioned tranche 3 of the Eurofighter. Could those on the Government Front Bench, in the spirit of clarity and openness for which my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire asked, for once be candid with the House as to exactly what is going on? About a year ago, I sat in this House listening to the Chief of the Air Staff, who said, on the record, that a number of optionszero, 22, 44 or 88 aircraftwere being considered. I am aware that other variations on those numbers and timings of the off-take are being considered. I am also aware that the Government have a cash-flow problem, and that other partners in the Eurofighter consortium have agreed their off-take.
	Whatever the numbers being considered, they have an implication. If we go for a lower number than we should in order to be compatible with the Government's promise that they remain committed to all 232 Eurofighter Typhoons, it could mean a substantial rearrangement of the work-share programme, which would affect the thousands of jobs in the aerospace industry in the north-west. BAe did an excellent job with Oxford Economics of establishing what that would mean in personal economic terms. There are about 60,000 jobs associated with the aerospace industry in the north-west, among 1,200 companies, which all work together on major projects. If we were to reduce the numbers, there could be some significant knock-on effectsnot just at BAe's plants, but in other small and medium-sized enterprises that are the lifeblood of the north-west's engineering economy.
	The Government also ought to be clear on the idea that they can somehow trade the Government-to-Government deal of 72 Eurofighter Typhoons with Saudi Arabia against their obligations to ensure that the RAF is properly equipped with the right number of planes. There should be candour on these matters in the House, instead of the ducking, weaving answers that I have had every time I raise the subject. The workforce at Warton would like some degree of certainty about the future. They recognise the stretched nature of the defence budget, but the time is right for the Government to make their views clear. It is interesting that I say that at a time when we read in the newspapers that tests in United States air force ranges in Nevada on the operational capability of the Eurofighter Typhoon show how well the aircraft is performing in what is as near as possible an operational activity. If the long-term export prospects of the plane are to be realised, the more the UK Government honour their commitment to the project, the better.
	I come to the joint strike fighter project, which was referred to earlier. I would like to see some tangible demonstration that the Government are, as Lord Drayson made clear, confident that they have solved the technology transfer issues that underpin the operational capability of the aircraft. No one has said anything, but Lord Drayson was very clear. He said that if that point was not demonstrable he would walk away from the project. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire indicated that the clock is ticking on the decisions that have to be made about what will operate from the aircraft carriers. The Government owe it to the House to tell us in a straightforward way whether the United States are playing ball and showing openness on that point. I seek a reassurance from the Minister that we will not go too far down the road of committing ourselves to the next stages of the joint strike fighter process until we can be certain that the short take-off and vertical landingSTOVOLversion of the aircraft is capable of delivering, as they say, what it says on the tin.
	Finally, I turn to the matter of unmanned air vehicles and autonomous air vehicles. It is interesting that names such as HERTI, Fury and Taranis are becoming the new lexicon of the aerospace industry in the north-west. I was delighted to read that HERTI has been deployed successfully in Afghanistan and that Fury has been to the San Diego exhibition in the United States. It demonstrated to the Americans that, in a relatively short time, we in the United Kingdom have been able to develop an unmanned air vehicle with a weapons capability, at a price that is probably much lower than that of the equivalent American product. That is extremely good news from the standpoint of our armed forces and industrial base. Again, it shows the benefit of our being able to maintain our own aerospace capability.
	Some 250 people are currently employed on those projects, and in fairness the Government have supported Taranis. I hope that they will continue to provide an economic underpinning for those vital new technologies. They show once again that British innovation can speedily develop systems that are much needed in the field, at a lower cost than the Americans and probably with a higher operational capability.
	I hope that, if the Minister is not able to deal with all my points in his wind-up, he will at least write to me in some detail to supply me once and for all with some hard answers, particularly on tranche 3.

Linda Gilroy: It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), who always talks not only in a spirited way about his constituency industry interests but knowledgeably about the aerospace industry.
	I wish to mention the work of the Defence Committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) said that it works on a cross-party basis to try to get good value for money from the defence industry, and that is true under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot). Some of the time that I most enjoy in this place is spent in the Defence Committee.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South, also drew on his considerable experience to remind us in no uncertain terms that procurement and its failures are as old as warfare itself. He and other hon. Members said that we are perhaps not paying a high enough premium for the defence of this country, and I agree. I hope that we will be able to set out a strong case for that.
	I am not absolutely convinced of the need for a new strategic defence review. The Government have announced a review against the background of the security and resilience strategy, and the Defence Committee is currently undertaking an inquiry examining the implications of that strategy from the MOD perspective. That review may well come up with some answers more quickly and in a more focused way. I hope that it will provide the certainty that people are looking for on certain matters, but of course the history of the issue is strewn with a slightly different experience. Maybe I will turn out to have been over-optimistic.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South, said that Nostradamus had had some success in his predictions. That reminded me of Machiavelli, who advised republicansnot princes in this casethat to try to guide a flood when it came, they needed to build bridges and dams. In the same way, we need to be agile in procurement and build capabilities that can flex to fast-changing circumstances and the threats that we face. The Government's need to weave that into the procurement process is perhaps greater than ever before.
	It is certainly important that the Government get procurement right. There is always a tension between procurement and personnel in the defence budget, and money lost through overruns, delays and project difficulties is money that could have been spent on pay, accommodation, personnel and other improved kit. During the course of our inquiry we heard about major changes in the Defence Logistics Organisation and the Defence Procurement Agency, and about the transformation into Defence Equipment and Support. We need to exercise a considerable degree of caution about the speed of those changes, particularly given the reductions in personnel, although the savings from that may, in the end, be welcome. However, speed in change can sometimes result in cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. We will need to keep a close eye on that over the coming months.
	Before I move on to naval matters, as hon. Members would probably expect me to, let me say that we in Devonport are still trying to get our heads round the idea of becoming a base for the manufacture of vehicles for use by the Army and the Marines. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to clarify a little the different types of vehicle that we are talking about and the roles that they play. There is a huge demand for the Supercat vehicles that are being manufactured in Devonport, and they are welcome when they arrive at their deployed destination.
	A year after Babcock took over responsibility for Devonport Management Ltd, which is no moreall the logos have been changed, and Devonport is now the UK base for Babcock Marineand following the naval base review, there is a great deal of interest in Plymouth and Devonport in what the process means for our local industry and work force. I am looking forward to a meeting in early July, to which I will bring some of the community leaders from Plymouth to discuss with my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces what the changes may involve.
	Certain questions flow for Devonport from the fact that the joint venture has been formed and that the order for the future carriers can now be placed. HMS Ark Royal and HMS Illustrious are planned to leave service in 2012 and 2015 respectively. In the meantime, they will still require maintenance and docking, especially as they are getting older, as older vessels often need more attention. There is some interest in how that will pan out, as Devonport undertook refits and maintenance on the Invincible class in the 1980s and early 1990s.
	There will obviously be disappointment about what I am sure was a difficult decision to make on the Type 45s, if for no other reason than that HMS Daring has well exceeded expectations in her sea trials. The six Type 45 destroyers that have been ordered to replace the Type 42 destroyers will certainly be a great asset to the Royal Navy. I would like to knowif not today, then at some pointwhether consideration is being given to extending the lives of the later Type 42 destroyers. Even without the Sea Dart, they could still be useful in undertaking some of the general purpose tasks, to which I will return when I talk about the numbers of frigates and destroyers, that were referred to earlier.
	Before that, let me mention in passing the Astute programme. As the Defence Committee has uncovered in so many of our inquiries, it is essential that sufficient orders are placed, in order to keep up the drumbeat and to keep up the skills base. That is as important to the future deterrent as it is to the current Astute programme, not only to ensure that the Navy receives the submarines that it requires, but to ensure that the skills necessary to build those submarines are not lost before work begins on the successor to Trident. I hope that the Under-Secretary will confirm that it is still the intention to order seven boats and tell us that he understands that confirming when orders for further units will be forthcoming would allow BAE Systems to plan with greater certainty and, potentially, keep the costs down.
	Much has been made of the numbers of frigates and destroyers being built but, as I set out in considerable detail in my Adjournment debate on 5 March, I believe that simply building greater numbers of ships is an over-simplistic answer. We need a wide, balanced and flexible range of capabilities. The Royal Navy's warships have always been multi-purpose. Destroyers protect carriers and amphibious ships from air attack, while frigates have the primary role of hunting submarines. Both have the secondary role of carrying out a range of medium to low-level tasks, from anti-piracy and counter-drugs operations to humanitarian missions and guard ship duties.
	We have always ensured that the ships are state of the art, in order to be effective in their primary roles. The Type 23 frigate, together with its Merlin helicopter, is the quietest and most effective anti-submarine frigate in the world. The Type 45 destroyer, with its Aster missiles and Samson radar, is also world class. However, this has had the effect of pushing up costs to the point at which it is no longer possible to build them in sufficient numbers to fulfil their secondary roles. The cost of a Type 45 is approximately 1 billion.
	It is therefore time for us to consider separating the two roles. A frigate undertaking humanitarian operations in the Caribbean during the hurricane season does not really need to carry anti-submarine weaponry. Nor does a destroyer intercepting pirates off west Africa really need the world's most advanced anti-aircraft missiles. Perhaps it is time for us to develop a small, flexible design for an escorta light frigate that we can build in sufficient numbers to carry out that multitude of tasks. The future surface combatant has been mentioned, and I hope that the Minister will set out whether that is the direction that the future surface combatant will take us in, with a capability to be adapted by spiral insertion to meet what are by common consent the uncertain and changing threats and roles that we shall face in the future.
	In conclusion, I shall return to the point at which I started, and stress the importance of getting the underlying procurement process right. Our Defence Committee report was broadly positive about the direction of travel, although we certainly have concerns about the speed of change and about the generation and mix of skills. The aim must be not just to take out cost but to improve quality and speed of decision making, and I believe that the Chair of the Select Committee was absolutely right to sound a note of caution. The coming months promise to bring plenty to keep our Committee busy on the procurement front, and I look forward to the discussions that I shall shortly have with community leaders about the prospects for Devonport's continuing important role in supporting the Royal Navy and our vital deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mark Pritchard: I should like to put on record my tribute and thanks to the brave men and women of our armed forces who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in other places around the world. They do an excellent job and we are all rightly proud of what they do.
	The future rapid effect systemFREShas been mentioned today. My constituents who work at BAE Land Systems, and those who work at associated engineering companies in my constituency and in wider Shropshire, were disappointed by the decision on Piranha 5 and General Dynamics, which preferred the VBCI vehicle, but we have moved on from our disappointment and hope that the Ministry of Defence will now look closely at the excellent work force at BAE Land Systems and in Shropshire generally, and that it will consider my constituency for the vehicle integrator programme. The Minister will know, having visited my constituency, that Shropshire has a long and proud history of serving Her Majesty's armed forcesthose in uniform and civiliansand that there is a wide, sound industrial base in the county and across the west midlands.
	I also pay tribute to the Defence Support Group and to all those who work in the Army Base Repair Organisation and the former Defence Logistics Organisation, which has now been re-branded. Nevertheless, the demand for logistics and the supply of urgent operational requirements continues and the work force in my constituency and the county of Shropshire more widely continue to be called on to deliver UORs, often at very short notice, to Afghanistan and Iraq, yet they deliver time and time again. I hope that the Minister will pay tribute to them on the record in his concluding remarks.
	I hope that the Minister will also take the opportunity to ensure that the Army Base Repair Organisation has a long-term future. Some months agoperhaps over a year agothere was a question mark over it, but after the excellent report of the Defence Select Committee, the Government rightly recognised that the attrition on armed vehicles in Afghanistan and Iraq and the greater wear and tear on them would mean further repairs. After the Defence Select Committee review, as well as a review by the MOD, Ministers took the right decision and said that ABRO should not be downsized or relocated, but extended and called for further recruitment to it. I pay tribute to ABRO's work. Having briefly visited Iraq with the armed forces parliamentary schemeindeed, I also visited Afghanistan just some weeks agoI can pay personal tribute to ABRO on its excellent work. Certainly, the 1st and 2nd Battalions of the Yorkshire Regiment pay tribute to its excellent work in getting damaged vehicles and those broken down back to the front line.
	The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith), sadly no longer in his place, alluded to issues about defence training, the defence training review and the defence training rationalisation programme. I am not trying to hark back to the past, as clearly a decision has been made for the programme to go to RAF St. Athan, but the Minister needs to come clean not just with the people of Shropshire and the west midlands, but with the people of Wales. Some real issues remain about the delivery of the programme, particularly on the lack of infrastructure in Wales and the squabbling between the Welsh Assembly, the Ministry of Defence and local authorities. The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan himself made some comments about that. He did not go into too much detail, but there were enough hints of concern in his speech to suggest that the defence training review programme might well be delayed. If that happens, it will be bad not only for Wales, but for Her Majesty's armed forces. I hope that the Minister will look again at the county of Shropshire, where we already have the infrastructure and the right people in place and where we have the experience necessary to continue to deliver the sort of defence training that Her Majesty's armed forces quite rightly expect and deserve.
	One key issue that the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan did not mention is the fact that training can be delivered only if there are trainers to deliver it. Local surveys carried out in my constituency by the Public and Commercial Services Uniona mostly excellent union in much, not all, of what it doesrevealed that the majority of experienced, hard-working, dedicated and loyal MOD trainers were for many reasons unable or unwilling to move to Wales. The differential in house prices was one of the key reasons, as house prices around St. Athan are about 25 or 30 per cent. higher than in some of the Shropshire locations. That is a real issue. The Government might find themselves with a training establishmentthe building and roads might eventually be builtbut the Minister might find that there are no trainers to deliver the training. That is a strategic issue about the procurement of defence training, which will obviously impact on the British armed forces as a whole.
	In my final minuteI have other things to say, but I am aware that time is running out for other Members who want to contribute to the debatelet me deal with the issue of hypermass technology. In the debate on Trident, I mentioned that the defence industrial strategy made no reference to such technology. The Government need to look at that. While I support nuclear, there are instances in which weapons of overwhelming force might need to be used when we could not use a nuclear weapon. We have only conventional missiles. We need something between a conventional missile and a nuclear missile so that we have more flexible options when dealing with increased threat.
	On unmanned aerial vehicles, while I completely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), it is right that we should have as much capability as we can within the UK. Without going into geographical detail, my concern is that in parts of theatre where UAVs are being used, it is not necessarily always British hands that are involved in every application of the UAV mission. That could raise conflict of interest issues.
	On cyber defence and the defence industrial strategy, we know that although China is a great nation in many ways and that it has a fine people, its Administration have perhaps not covered themselves in glory on human rights and a range of issues. We know from the head of our own Security Service that China is very interested in our military secrets. Even in the House, we have been told about cyber attacks from outside, potentially from China.
	I hope that the defence industrial strategy will carefully consider developing a British capability not only for cyber defence, but for cyber offence, because as military equipment becomes more reliant on integrated systems, fly by wire, special forces and aircraft such as the Typhoon, having the defence systems to protect ourselves from cyber attack will be critical and we must also have the capability to go on the offensive should we choose to do so.

Kevan Jones: I associate myself with the condolences expressed to those men and women of our armed forces who lost their lives in Afghanistan in the last week or so. In particular, I pay tribute to Corporal Sarah Bryant, the first woman to lose her life in Afghanistan. As a member of the Defence Committee for the last seven years, I have seen young men and young women doing a tremendous job in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and we should recognise the tremendous debt that we owe not only to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the last week, but to those men and women who continue to serve.
	I do not agree with the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) that we need a strategic defence review. The major strategic issues are still as they were in 1998 and a review would be a diversion from where we are now. The issue that we face is the fact that we have high-tempo operations in Iraq and in Afghanistan alongside what my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) put forward on the legacy programmes. We can all say that we would like to cancel or change them, but in practice it would be difficult to do so. The two run side by side.
	The Ministry of Defence has been good in responding to demands in theatre, such as in Afghanistan. Urgent operational requirement has worked and I pay tribute not just to the people in the MOD who made that happen, but to industry. Not only large defence companies, but small defence companies and suppliers have stepped up to the mark and delivered quickly. We have seen that clearly with vehicles, as well as with things that we do not and should not talk about, such as technology around counter-measures and improvised explosive devices, which is saving lives in Iraq and in Afghanistan. That applies not just to our servicemen and women, but to those of other nations.
	In the last few years, it has been common to kick defence around as a political football, but I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South. Since I have been a member of the Defence Committee, we have had a consensus on a lot of issues, which is how it should be. Let us make it clear: all parties will go into the next general election with no commitment radically to increase the amount we spend on defence, although I, like my right hon. Friend, would argue for more defence expenditure. No one is going to do that, so we are facing some difficult decisions in respect of our armed forces.
	Senior military personnel are in the same position. They may think that kicking these matters around will lead to easy newspaper headlines that will change things, but they must understand that they too have to make sure that we get value for money, in terms of both equipment and military organisation. Even though our Army has reduced in size over the past few years, there is still a debate to be had about its present structure.
	Like most people, I welcomed the defence industrial strategy. It clarified the position regarding our armed forces' equipment, and also in respect of industry. I was sceptical about whether it would outlast Lord Drayson, and unfortunately I have been proved right. I said as much to the permanent secretary at the MOD when he came before the Defence Committee about a year ago. The uncertainty described earlier by the Chairman of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), is not good: we need clarity, but I understand the pressures that the MOD is facing. The money that needs to expended very quickly on our armed forces' high-tempo operations must be laid alongside the existing defence budget.
	That is a difficult thing to do, but sometimes I wish that the MOD would tell us the reality of the situation rather than trying to con us that, for example, the future rapid effect system is all about design, because it is not. If someone were to tell me that the vehicles that we bought for Afghanistan and Iraq were to be incorporated into the FRES requirements, I would accept that. It is a perfectly legitimate thing to do, but the MOD should tell us what is happening. That would be better then insulting our intelligence by maintaining that something different is going on.
	We have been promised a new chapter on the defence industrial strategy, and we need one to remove the uncertainty facing industry. The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) talked about skills, and I have said on numerous occasions that the skills that we need in our defence industry cannot be turned on and off like a tap. Decisions need to be taken now, and some major projects may have to be cancelled. For example, I welcome today's announcement about Type 45 destroyers, as that will give the rest of the defence sector the clarity that it needs.
	Companies will know where to go for investment, and there will be an improvement in the investment that is made in skills. That is important, as it takes monthsand sometimes many yearsto upskill people so that they can handle the new technologies. That is why it is important that we get the clarity, to which I have referred, as quickly as possible.
	The Government can be proud that the procurement process has had an impact on regions such as mine. For example, the two new carriers will have a major impact in the north-east of England. That will be felt in the traditional shipbuilding industry that will handle their fabrication, but all sorts of small and medium-sized industries will benefit as well. It used to be that large industries produced ships and other big pieces of kit, but those days are gone. Even so, the defence industry is worth about 2 billion to the regional economy of the north-east, with much of the work being carried out by SMEs.
	That work is very ably supported by the company Northern Defence Industries, which champions the supply chain in the north-east and Yorkshire. It also works with the North West Aerospace Alliance to ensure that SMEs can access some of the work that is coming forward.
	We need the clarity that I have referred to. Tough decisions must be made, and the sooner, the better. We need to make sure that we can produce the necessary equipment for our armed forces, and our service personnel must have confidence that they will get the kit that they will need in the future. Finally, we must make sure that the industrial base for this country's defence industry is retained and strengthened as a result of the key decisions that we take.

Angus Robertson: It is right and proper for me to add the condolences of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, the party of Wales, to those already expressed following the tragic loss of service personnel in Afghanistan.
	Procurement is not just about the acquisition of new assets; it is also about the responsibly managed transition from the systems that they are replacing. That applies most acutely to the Nimrod replacement programme, in which the current MR2 fleet based at RAF Kinloss in my constituency will be superseded by the MRA4.
	I am pleased that the Secretary of State visited RAF Kinloss today. He will have met and heard from the air and ground crew as well as the civilian contractors, who do an excellent job and are working hard within the resource constraints to ensure that the appropriate safety standards are met. He will also have heard the concerns of the civilian work force and their union about job security. I hope he was able to provide the reassurances that they sought.
	As matters stand, BAE Systems expects to conclude flight-test activities on its three Nimrod MRA4 development aircraft later this year. Nine MRA4s are under contract for the RAF, and there is also an option for the three refurbished design and development aircraft. It has been reported in the specialist aviation press that the first production MRA4 will achieve power on by September this year and will then enter an extended equipment fit, load and test programme before making its first flight next year. Under the current programme schedule, BAE Systems will deliver four production MRA4s to RAF Kinloss by the end of 2010, when the new type is expected to be declared to be in-service.
	Colleagues in the Defence Committee, a number of whom are still in the Chamber, recently called on the MOD to reconsider its options in relation to the Nimrod MRA4. Without dismissing the awful track record of the programme or the lessons that need to be learned from it, I should stress that most of the costs have already been incurred. To walk away now would mean losing massive sums of taxpayer investment.
	Although the delays and budgetary increases in the Nimrod MRA4 programme are of course cause for concern, another particular and deadly problem has resulted. Owing to the important capability of the existing Nimrod and the need for its vital services in a range of theatres, the 40-year-old Nimrod MR2 fleet has been pushed to the limits. In the recent case of Nimrod XV230, it proved fatal. Shortly after refuelling over Afghanistan on 2 September 2006, the aircraft exploded near Kandahar, killing all 14 personnel aboard. It was the biggest UK loss of life since the Falklands war, and more than half the victims were my constituents.
	On 5 November 2007, a further mid-air incident took place, this time when Nimrod XV235 was over Afghanistan. The crew noticed a fuel leak during-air-to-air refuelling operations. After issuing an in-flight mayday, the aircraft was landed successfully. The Minister of State admitted recently that there had been at least 111 fuel leaks since Nimrod XV230 exploded.
	On 4 December 2007, the report of the findings of the official board of the inquiry into the loss of XV230 was published. Four separate factors were listed as having contributed to the accident, and are a matter of public record. On 23 May 2008, only a few short weeks ago, the coroner who led the inquest into the deaths stated that the entire Nimrod fleet had
	never been airworthy from the first time it was released to service,
	and urged that it be grounded. The assistant deputy coroner for Oxfordshire, Andrew Walker, added:
	I have given the matter considerable thought and I see no alternative but to report to the secretary of state that the Nimrod fleet should not fly until the Alarp
	as low as reasonably practicable
	standards are met.
	The Chairman of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), said earlier that we needed answers. I agree. We have been given no detailed statement, or indeed any detail at all. What I would describe as a badly advised and badly timed press release was issued only minutes after the deputy coroner had announced his ruling. There cannot have been time for serious consideration of the points that he had made.
	Last December, the Secretary of State assured Members that Nimrod was safe, citing a report by QinetiQ. It has proved difficult to establish whether that was factually correct. It has taken freedom of information requests to establish that the report said that the aircraft would not be fully safe until its 30 recommendations had been implemented. All but one of those recommendations related to a failure to implement mandatory airworthiness regulations.
	The inquest heard that if the risk of something going wrong on a plane is only tolerable, MOD rules stipulate that it must be further reduced to make it as low as reasonably practicableALARPbefore the plane can be declared safe. The QinetiQ report cited by the Secretary of State as showing the aircraft was safe in fact found that it was only tolerably safe but, because of the 30 problems, it was not ALARP.
	It is still not ALARP. In a letter to me, the Secretary of State for Defence said that of the 30 recommendations, 21 have been acceptedusing the present tenseby the MOD and are still being implemented. Six relate to air-to-air refuelling, which is no longer done with Nimrods. Three more are stillagain, present tensebeing considered.
	Group Captain Colin Hickman, who is in charge of the safety of the Nimrod fleet, admitted to the coroner that the remaining Nimrods were not ALARP and would not be so until the end of this year. Asked if this process could be speeded up, Hickman replied:
	No, it is driven by resources.
	Reassurances need to be given about transitional arrangements from the MR2 to the MRA4 and about safety standards for ageing systems facing replacement as part of a managed procurement process. We need answers on this. I would welcome the Minister giving some detail of all the 30 recommendations. How many have been fully implemented and when will the rest of them be implemented? It is only fair that we have the answers.
	Some say this is a technical point, but I think it is easily understood by the man in the street. The situation now with the Nimrod fleet is as if a driver had been notified of 30 improvements necessary for his car to pass an MOT and, nearly two years later, he is only partially through the mandatory work and is still considering whether to go through with some of the other repairs. It would not be allowed in a car. Why does the MOD think it is okay for a plane? Given that the ALARP standard is the MOD's own standard, I do not understand why it is not complied with. I hope the Minister will explain that this evening.

Bernard Jenkin: I shall endeavour to be extremely brief and I join the tributes paid by colleagues to our armed forces.
	The background to this procurement debate is of course what General Sir Kevin O'Donoghue, Chief of the Defence Materiel, told the Select Committee about the difficulty he is facing in this planning round, PR08. He said that it was different from anything that had gone before and was worse than the planning round of 2007. He had to think back to the 1970s for anything comparable. The essential problem is that the Government spending increases on defence have simply not kept up with either the costs of procurement or of operations.
	As Lord Guthrie, the Chief of the Defence Staff, said at the time, the SDR was never fully funded. It is interesting that Government Ministers are keen to take military advice when it suits them but when they were presented with that advice back in 1998, they refused to take it. We have been living with the consequences ever since.
	The Prime Minister likes to laud the 6 billion of urgent operational requirements that have been delivered to our front-line forces over recent years, but unfortunately UORs do not address the shortage of baseline funding. Even PR08 foresaw a mere 1.5 per cent. real-terms increase to 2011, a minute increase compared with the increases given to other Departments over the years. Defence cost inflation, and the ring-fenced spending for Trident, for housing, for pensions and for the council tax rebate pretty quickly whittle that increase down to something minimal, if it is an increase at all. The Government's failure properly to fund the main equipment programme over the past 10 years has a direct consequence on operations, a very painful one, as the exchanges on Snatch land rovers demonstrated.
	What capabilities do we really need? The Minister of State said on Monday, and repeated today, that the MOD now aims to
	shift the balance of defence procurement to support operations. [ Official Report, 16 June 2008; Vol. 477, c. 663.]
	That is a highly dangerous concept to pursue and it is very unsound to premise future operations on present operations.
	Churchill always said that the War Office is always preparing for the last war, and it seems that nothing changes. What sort of wars will we be fighting in the next 30 years, which is the realistic time horizon on which we should be planning the major equipment programme? That is difficult to tell at the best of times, but we know that weapons proliferation will increase and that a huge shift is taking place in the distribution of power among the world's superpowers. Conflicts and crises will become increasingly complex and unpredictable.
	At present, the Government's interventionist foreign policy simply does not match their defence policy of limited resources. Last week, General Dannatt said that
	the Army of tomorrow must retain the capability to fight Major Combat Operations (MCO)s and Stability Ops, both simultaneously and sequentially.
	He is obviously correct in his assessment of the type of operations the British armed forces need to be able to conduct, and it is the duty of politicians to provide the armed forces with the capabilities they need and to provide best value for the taxpayer.
	The idea of tailoring the armed forces to short-term requirements is too short-sighted. We accept that the opposite strategy of trying to provide for every eventuality at any time is too expensive. We need to strike the balance for which the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) argued, between readiness for immediate operations and readiness for the longer term.
	In the face of that and in the current low-threat environment, we need what Admiral Sir Sandy Woodward has called a core force strategy. That means that we need to spend the money on the big platformsthe expensive bits of kiteven at times of low threat, so that we are in a position to build up our armed forces at a later date should the threats change and that be necessary. The danger of transferring resources from the major equipment programme to short-term operations currently being undertaken is that we are playing poker with the future of this country. We have no idea what threats we might face in five, 10 or 15 years' time.
	Those were the arguments that Ministers deployed in favour of renewing the Trident missile system and the Trident submarine. Those same arguments apply to every other aspect of our defence policy, and it is short-sighted to pursue the policy that the Government are beginning to pursue. The problem with the strategic defence review is not its content or its shopping listeveryone agreed that it was a pretty good blueprint for defence policy and the armed forces; the problem is the lack of money.

Andrew Murrison: I add my tribute to those that have been paid so warmly today to the fallen. It is a sad day today for British defence procurement, because the Minister has announcedsotto voce, if I may say sothe reduction in the number of T45s from the 1998 assumption of 12 to six. That is to be regretted.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) wants to increase defence spending. I certainly hope that there will be no more reductions in our capability. My plea to the Minister, if he is tempted to make any further cuts, is not to do it on a tribal basis. In the past, the temptation has been to divvy up any cuts on an Army, Navy and Air Force basis, and that will not do. That approach underpinned Delivering Security in a Changing World only a few years ago, but it does not serve the British defence capability overall. That was probably what the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) meant when he talked about salami-slicing.
	The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) expressed her understandable concerns about the T45 programme. She also asked about these old workhorses, the T42s. I remember them well, and they are now old ladies. I would be interested to hear whether the Minister thinks that, in the light of his announcement today, their service should be extended. The hon. Lady also rightly asked for reassurances about the Astute programme.
	While we are on the subject of the senior service, I should say how much I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) about the need for some progress on the decision on the technology transfer that will underpin our decision on the future of the JSF. If we are not going to get the JSF, we need to think very carefully about what we are going to do with our carriers.
	It is always a pleasure to listen to the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). He spent some time saying that he hoped the debate would not be partisan, and indeed up to that point it mostly had not been. He made an important point, and the debate has been fairly on the level today.
	We heard an excellent speech from the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith). He was absolutely rightthe procurement of training is every bit as important as the procurement of bits of kit and hardware. I shall come on to that in a moment. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) underlined the same point. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) made a linked point by saying that we cannot simply, in his words, turn skills on and off like a tap in relation to the defence industry. Of course, he is absolutely right.
	The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) gave a robust defence of the defence sector. He talked about Lancashire, and I suspect that Ghandi would be smiling down at this debate because, of course, he made a rather similar observation in relation to homespun all those years ago. The hon. Gentleman's point was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning).
	The defence industrial strategy recognises that the defence industry is a business like no other. There is a delicate balance to be struck between protectionism, which we have learned is in nobody's long-term interests but which characterises the defence industries of our competitors, and the free market instincts towards which most of us, on this side of the House at least, would naturally incline.
	France, Germany and the US protect their defence industries using a bewildering array of direct and indirect offsets and old-style state ownership. It is against that backdrop that we have to consider the way that successive Governments have dealt with the purchase of equipment for the British armed forces and the support that we offer our defence industry.
	Underpinning the DIS is the doctrine of appropriate sovereignty. Many would say that that means very limited sovereignty or none at all. The question is the extent to which we can or should endeavour to control the means to manufacture and service our own kit and to ensure that we control imported items of a sensitive nature. As equipment becomes more complex, that becomes increasingly difficult, but from SA80 A2 conversions to anything reliant on GPS we are hopelessly dependent on other countries. Even if bits of our kit were wholly organic, we could not possibly mount an effective fighting force on land, sea or air if, for whatever reason, defence manufacturers outwith the immediate control of the UK decided to stop playing with us or became obstructive.
	We should be realistic about the price tag that we put on the notion of appropriate sovereignty beyond highly specialised requirements relating to the independent nuclear deterrent, cryptology and the perverse desire of some to deny technology transfer. Of course, I have in mind the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde. Finally, but most importantly, we must not compromise on quality. Our troops are the best, but too often they have gamely put up with kit that frankly leaves a great deal to be desired.
	A number of right hon. and hon. Members have talked about the urgent operational requirement, notably my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex. It is generally accepted that the UOR has been a success. We do not know how much exactlyor even approximatelyhas been spent on it since there is something of a disparity between what has been announced by the Minister and his Department's outturn. Nevertheless, we know that it does not cover a raft of things that are consumed by war fighting and thus fall on a peacetime defence budget. That has been referred to in this debate.
	The UOR process anticipates operations of short duration. We are five years into Telic, and as we recalibrate our expectations for the length of our engagements in Afghanistan we need to think about what constitutes urgent and how it will be funded. If the military thought that the UOR was Father Christmas, they were mistaken. What the Treasury gives with one hand, it takes with the other. Equipment provided quickly for war that would have been procured electively in any case is subject to both clawback and, of course, accelerated senility. However, we should give credit where it is due, and the UOR has meant that off-shelf equipment has been purchased, removing the risk of project delays and overspends and allowing truly smart procurement with limited scope for the MOD to mess up in acquiring kit, a capacity that the right hon. Member for Walsall, South referred to in a non-partisan sort of way.
	Helicopters are bound to come into such a debate. The big story is the cut in the budget of 1.4 billion in 2004, which I am sure the Minister will accept, with the benefit of hindsight, was a mistake. If one talks to anybody in transit in a tracked or wheeled vehicle in Iraq and Afghanistan, they will say that they would rather be airborne. My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) pointed that out. Helicopters have to be the means to get from A to B in hostile terrain, and following the announcement on Monday of a reconfiguration of British forces in Afghanistan and better force protection, I hope that we can look forward to optimising our air assets.
	May we have an update on where we are with regard to making the extra Merlins that we bought from the Danes fit for purpose? Will they have an operational traffic alert and collision avoidance system?
	Finally, I note that the Government called the debate Defence Procurement, the implication being that they wanted to talk about tanks, ships, and aircraft, but let us be clear about the most important piece of kit in the Minister's, or any future Minister's, armoury. It can never be reduced to an acronym; it will never be the CVS, FRES or JSF. It has been the same since King Alfred repelled the Danes at Ethandune and Bloody Point. It is our sailors, soldiers andit pains me to say this, because sadly Alfred did not have the benefit of them in the 9th centuryairmen. We must procure more of them, particularly for the infantry and pinch-point trades. We must reduce wastage of them, and we must ensure that their through-life capabilities are our first consideration.